Leishmaniasis is classified as a neglected tropical disease (NTD), caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania, which are transmitted to humans and other animals through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. There are three forms of the disease: cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) manifested by ulcers and scars; systemic or visceral leishmaniasis (VL), which can lead to life-threatening complications if left untreated; and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (MCL), which can destroy the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth and throat. Human leishmaniasis is endemic in many countries across Africa, Asia, Southern Europe, the Middle East, and Central and South America. The interconnection of environmental, animal and human health underlies the spread of the Leishmania parasite. Environmental disruptions, such as climate change, deforestation or urbanisation, but also globalisation and migration, significantly affect the distribution and abundance of sand fly vectors and reservoir hosts. Climate change alters the breeding patterns of sandflies and expands their geographic range; deforestation and misuse of large areas disrupt ecosystems, leading to increased human-vector contact; and urbanisation increases the potential for contact between parties, particularly in densely populated areas. Migration of humans and animals, either through natural migration or, for example, the pet trade and breeding, can facilitate the spread of Leishmania parasites. In addition, socio-economic factors, including poverty and lack of access to healthcare, increase the burden of leishmaniasis in vulnerable populations. Due to this multitude of reasons, the geographic distribution of sandflies has expanded to higher latitudes and altitudes in recent years, with a consequent increase in disease burden. Indeed, despite ongoing challenges in the surveillance systems, data from the last available year have shown an increase in many cases in both humans and dogs. This perspective explores the interconnected factors influencing the spread of leishmaniasis worldwide and the epidemiology of the disease. In addition, it illustrates the importance of integrated strategies in a One Health approach: surveillance, prevention and control of vectors, animals and humans.

Objective The first biomarker associated with the rheumatoid arthritis is rheumatoid factor (RF) and since the earliest reports a role has been proposed in the diagnosis and in the prediction of clinical features and outcome. The study of RF isotypes has further attempted to improve diagnostic accuracy and identify specific subgroups of patients. The main objective of this study is to provide an analysis of the literature on the role of RF isotypes in the diagnosis and prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the role of RF isotypes in RA (only in English, from PubMed, search terms: “rheumatoid factor isotypes”, “diagnosis”, “prognosis” and “rheumatoid arthritis”, last search 31 July 2022, two independent assessment of quality and biases, results included in tables and in the meta-analysis). Results Thirty-six articles were examined (7517 patients). Testing all RF isotypes with latex test or nephelometry allows for the highest sensitivity (68.6%, 95% CI 66.2% to 71.0%); nonetheless, the determination of IgA isotype provides the highest specificity (91.4%, 95% CI 90.8% to 92.0%) and the highest positive likelihood ratio (7.7, 95% CI 5.7 to 10.4). When testing IgM isotype the highest diagnostic OR (21.7, 95% CI 16.1 to 29.3) is reached. When analysing anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, RF isotype determination increases diagnostic accuracy. On the other hand, these do not provide relevant prognostic information, as results are conflicting. Conclusions Testing RF allows the highest sensitivity, while IgA isotype the highest specificity and positive likelihood ratio for RA diagnosis. On the other hand, determination of RF isotypes dose not allow prognostic information, as data are limited and heterogeneous.